Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Logos who wrote (7958)	5/25/1998 12:30:00 AM
From: ed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

So, the Explorer is integrated together as one single package, and of course charged together. When you buy a car , say you pay $30000, the dealer told you that the engine is free, and so is the airconditions, Do you believe it ? Nothing is free in this world, and the engine and aircondition is not free either, they are just charged together as one single package, of course the dealer can tell you that, or this is free. Do you think the explorer is really free ? NO!, it is just charged together with win98 as one single package. After integration, it is one single product, and of course , it is charged as single one product !!!!

To: Logos who wrote (7958)	5/25/1998 5:05:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Re Actually, you can set up a model where Microsoft charges too much and too little. The idea being that it charges too much for the stuff it has no competition to and too little where there is competition, to crush that competition, so that it can later charge too much in this area. Except that when I review the products offered by Microsoft, I find that in the area of OS, where it is my opinion that Microsoft has very little in the way of worthy competing products, the price of $89 for Win95/98 upgrade is quite reasonable, particularly in consideration of the cost of other components. Many products, both software and hardware, don't even offer an "upgrade" price. Quickbooks comes to mind. For every new version, you have to simply repurchase the product (in QuickBooks case, it's $89). Then consider the areas in which Microsoft has worthy competition: Office application suites: Corel WP Suite, Lotus SmartSuite. Microsoft Office 97 SBE upgrade: $180 (after $40 mail-in rebate) Mouse: Microsoft standard two-button mouse is the most expensive two-button mouse out there at $69. Most other mice are in the $30-$40 range, and I've even seen them for $10-$20. Imagine selling a mouse for only $20 less than the whole operating system (no "upgrade" price on the mouse, either). As far as the browser -- The reality is that the stand-alone "browser" is on the scrap heap of history. Netscape's browser is simply a victim of advancing technology -- joining a long gray line of such products stretching back to the beginning of this century. In Microsoft's case, I think the model would be: Microsoft over-charges for the OS itself so it could give away the browser for free. So, I guess you could say one can offer many different "models" depending on what products you want to compare.

To: Logos who wrote (7958)	5/25/1998 7:28:00 PM
From: Hal Rubel	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 74651

Monopoly Predatory Pricing RE:"Re: It's very funny - depending on which Microsoft critic you talk to, Microsoft is either guilty of charging too much, or charging too little. Well, it's got to be one or the other, right? Antitrust "theory" is very flexible -basically anything Microsoft does is evidence of guilt." This statement seems rather clumsy in avoiding the very obvious and widely recognized issue that raised it: The only references to the price that the consumer pays has been in the context of Predatory Dumping. Is it OK for an American company with short and intermediate term monopolistic powers in the market place to "DUMP" (think browser) its product on the market short term in order to create a monopoly long term? (We are talking pricing not related to the current cost of production. This is not a mater of economic efficiency.) If it is ok, then is it ok for a foreign company to "DUMP" product into the American market in order to knock our firms out of a product line so prices can be raised later? What kind if general principle would one have to formulate to make it come out that it is OK for Microsoft to engage in predatory pricing and marketing tactics, but not right for, lets say, Korean RAM manufacturers to do the same? I see a lot of sweeping Microsoft partisanism and very little principle in discussing how high Microsoft will fly on this board. It is the principles behind the issues that will decide, in part, the future of Microsoft. Lets put our thinking caps on and shoot from the hip a little less. HR